A1: Agricultural Report.pdf

8/16/2019 A1: Agricultural Report.pdf

1/68

U.S. 50 Corridor EastTier 1 Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement

Agricultural Resources

Technical MemorandumJune 2016


2/68


3/68

U.S. 50 Corridor East Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Agricultural Resources Technical Memorandum

June 2016 i

Table of Contents

Chapter Pages

1. Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.

Resource Definition ....................................................................................................................... 2

3.

Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Guidance ............................................................................ 4

3.1.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 ........................................................................................... 4

3.2.

FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A ............................................................................................... 4

4. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1.

Relevant Data or Information Sources ............................................................................................. 5

4.2.

Data Collection and Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................... 6

4.3.

Project Area.................................................................................................................................... 11

4.4.

Effects ............................................................................................................................................ 11

4.5.

Mitigation Options .......................................................................................................................... 13

4.6.

Deliverables.................................................................................................................................... 13

5. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 14

5.1.

Agricultural Economy ..................................................................................................................... 14

5.2.

Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 15

5.3.

Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, Unique Crops, and Farming Methods ..................... 18

6.

Effects Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 19

6.1.

No-Build Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 19

6.2.

Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................................... 19

7. Mitigation Strategies .................................................................................................................... 31

8. References .................................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A. Resource Methodology Overview for Agricultural Resources ................................ 37

Appendix B.

Abbreviations and Acronyms...................................................................................... 39

Appendix C.

Figures (C-1 through C-21) .......................................................................................... 41

TablesTable 4-1. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance .................................................................7

Table 4-2. Enterprise Budget Information for Crops Grown in the Lower Arkansas Valley (all figures are peracre)....................................................................................................................................................................9

Table 5-1. Percent of Total (Direct) Employment by Sector and County in 2011 (NAICS Based) ................. 14

Table 5-2. State Rank (Top 10 Only) for Acres of Crop Production by County .............................................. 16

Table 5-3. Farmland and Ranch Lands in the Project Area by County ........................................................... 16

Table 6-1. Summary of Potentially Affected Agricultural Resources by Section for the Build Alternatives .... 21


4/68


ii June 2016

FiguresFigure 1-1. U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS Project Area .......................................................................................................1

Figure 4-1. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 Decision .............................................................................................................. 11

Figure 6-1. Build Alternatives Overview .......................................................................................................... 20

Figure 7-1. Example of Uneconomical Remainders ........................................................................................ 31

http://denfs06/trans/Tranproj/US%2050%20246194.01/Deliverables/DEIS%20DOCUMENT/DEIS%20SUBMITTAL%2008%20-%20PUBLIC%20RELEASE/Appendixes/Appendix%20A%20-%20Resource%20Tech%20Reports/01Agricultural/01Agricultural%20Report_Mar2016.docx%23_Toc445814864http://denfs06/trans/Tranproj/US%2050%20246194.01/Deliverables/DEIS%20DOCUMENT/DEIS%20SUBMITTAL%2008%20-%20PUBLIC%20RELEASE/Appendixes/Appendix%20A%20-%20Resource%20Tech%20Reports/01Agricultural/01Agricultural%20Report_Mar2016.docx%23_Toc445814864http://denfs06/trans/Tranproj/US%2050%20246194.01/Deliverables/DEIS%20DOCUMENT/DEIS%20SUBMITTAL%2008%20-%20PUBLIC%20RELEASE/Appendixes/Appendix%20A%20-%20Resource%20Tech%20Reports/01Agricultural/01Agricultural%20Report_Mar2016.docx%23_Toc445814866http://denfs06/trans/Tranproj/US%2050%20246194.01/Deliverables/DEIS%20DOCUMENT/DEIS%20SUBMITTAL%2008%20-%20PUBLIC%20RELEASE/Appendixes/Appendix%20A%20-%20Resource%20Tech%20Reports/01Agricultural/01Agricultural%20Report_Mar2016.docx%23_Toc445814866http://denfs06/trans/Tranproj/US%2050%20246194.01/Deliverables/DEIS%20DOCUMENT/DEIS%20SUBMITTAL%2008%20-%20PUBLIC%20RELEASE/Appendixes/Appendix%20A%20-%20Resource%20Tech%20Reports/01Agricultural/01Agricultural%20Report_Mar2016.docx%23_Toc445814866http://denfs06/trans/Tranproj/US%2050%20246194.01/Deliverables/DEIS%20DOCUMENT/DEIS%20SUBMITTAL%2008%20-%20PUBLIC%20RELEASE/Appendixes/Appendix%20A%20-%20Resource%20Tech%20Reports/01Agricultural/01Agricultural%20Report_Mar2016.docx%23_Toc445814864


5/68


June 2016 1

1. Project Overview

The U.S. 50 Corridor East Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS) was initiated by theproject’s lead agencies, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The purpose of the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS is to provide, within the framework of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), a corridor location decision for U.S. Highway 50 (U.S.50) from Pueblo to the vicinity of the Colorado-Kansas state line that CDOT and the communities can use toplan and program future improvements, preserve right-of-way, pursue funding opportunities, and allow forresource planning efforts.

The U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS officially began in January 2006 when the Notice of Intent was published in theFederal Register . The U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS project area (Figure 1-1) is the area in which U.S. 50 Tier 1 EISalternatives were assessed. This area traverses nine municipalities and four counties in the Lower ArkansasValley of Colorado. The nine municipalities include (from west to east) the city of Pueblo, town of Fowler,town of Manzanola, city of Rocky Ford, town of Swink, city of La Junta, city of Las Animas, town of Granada,and town of Holly. The four counties that fall within this project area are Pueblo, Otero, Bent, and Prowerscounties.

The project area does not include the city of Lamar. A separate Environmental Assessment (EA), the U.S.287 at Lamar Reliever Route Environmental Assessment , includes both U.S. 50 and U.S. Highway 287 (U.S.287) in its project area, since they share the same alignment. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)for the project was signed November 10, 2014. The EA/FONSI identified a proposed action that bypassesthe city of Lamar to the east. The proposed action of the U.S. 287 at Lamar Reliever Route Environmental Assessment begins at the southern end of U.S. 287 near County Road (CR) C-C and extends nine miles toState Highway (SH) 196. Therefore, alternatives at Lamar are not considered in this U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS.

Figure 1-1. U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS Project Area


6/68


2 June 2016

2. Resource Definition

Important farmlands are defined as part of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) (7 CFR 658).The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessaryand irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. As part of the NEPA process, agencies are

required to identify prime and unique farmland that will be impacted by federally funded transportationprojects. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) identifies important farmlands in each countybased on national regulations and state guidance.

The FPPA defines four types of important farmlands: prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewideimportance, and farmland of local importance.

Prime farmland is land that has the combination of physical and chemical characteristics for productionof food, feed, and other agricultural crops.

Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high-valueagricultural products.

Farmland of statewide importance has been determined by the Colorado State Experiment Station, theColorado State Department of Agriculture, and the Colorado State Soil Conservation Board.

Farmland of local importance is identified by a local agency or agencies as certain additional lands thatare important to the local community, but do not qualify as prime, unique, or of statewide importance.

In the project area, agricultural resources generally are defined as:

Prime and unique farmland, as identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s NRCS (FPPA 1984) Farmland of statewide importance in Colorado, as defined by the Colorado Department of Agriculture

(FPPA 1984)

Data from the NRCS identified the majority of the land within the project area as prime and unique farmland.To differentiate between these types of land, additional analysis was conducted to categorize them based ontheir agricultural use. More information about this categorization process is presented in Section 4.3. Itshould be noted that no farmland of local importance was identified within the project area, so this type will

not be discussed further.

The Lower Arkansas Valley has a long history of agricultural activities that dates back to the arrival of thefirst settlers in the area in the late 1800s. These activities have been, and continue to be, the foundation ofthe region’s economy. For this reason, this analysis considered more than just farmland. The agriculturalresources evaluated for the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS include the following:

Farmland—land used for crop production Ranch lands—land used for ranching and grazing activities

Feedlots—confined areas where livestock is prepared for market Irrigation canals and ditches—man-made channels that allow water from the Arkansas River to reach

non-adjacent farmland Permanent roadside produce markets—facilities that sell agricultural products from nearby farms, such

as produce, directly to consumers Agricultural product storage facilities—facilities that store products produced on nearby farms, such as

grain, before it is sold

Livestock sales facilities—operations that facilitate the transfer of livestock from one owner to another

All of these resources were evaluated because of their importance to the agricultural-based economy of theLower Arkansas Valley. Removing farmland or ranch lands from production does not simply affect the land,but it also affects the people and other businesses that derive their livelihoods from it. Farms, ranches,feedlots, and other agricultural businesses provide employment directly for producers and owners, but they


7/68


June 2016 3

also provide jobs for other local businesses. For example, farmers make annual purchases for items such asseeds and fertilizer, and they also make capital investments in farm equipment and irrigation systems. Thelocal businesses that provide these goods and services depend on the primary businesses for theircontinued operation.

The system of irrigation canals and ditches that were excavated by the earliest settlers of the Lower Arkansas Valley are still in use today. It is important to identify possible effects to them because there may

be resulting effects on the farmland drawing water from them.

Permanent roadside produce markets, agricultural storage facilities, and livestock sales facilities areimportant businesses in the Lower Arkansas Valley for more than just the money they add to the localeconomy. They all serve very specific, but important, roles in the delivery of agricultural products to marketswithin and outside the area.


8/68


9/68


June 2016 5

4. Methodology

The U.S. 50 Corridor East project is a Tier 1 EIS. “Tiering” for this process means that the work involved willbe conducted in two phases, or tiers, as follows:

Tier 1— A broad-based (i.e., corridor level) NEPA analysis and data collection effort. The goal of Tier 1 isto determine a general corridor location (not a roadway footprint). Data sources will include existingquantitative data, qualitative information, or both. Mitigation strategies (not necessarily specific mitigationactivities) and corridor-wide mitigation opportunities will be identified. Additionally, the Tier 1 EIS willidentify sections of independent utility (SIUs) and provide strategies for access management and corridorpreservation.

Tier 2— A detailed (i.e., project level) NEPA analysis and data collection effort. The goal of Tier 2 studieswill be to determine an alignment location for each SIU identified in Tier 1. Data sources will includeproject-level data, including field data collection when appropriate. Tier 2 studies will provide project-specific impacts, mitigation, and permitting for each proposed project.

Resource methodology overviews were developed to identify and document which resource evaluationactivities would be completed during the Tier 1 EIS, and which would be completed during Tier 2 studies.

These overviews are intended to be guidelines to ensure that the Tier 1 EIS remains a broad-based analysis,while clarifying (to the public and resource agencies) when particular data and decisions would be addressedin the tiered process.

These overviews were approved by FHWA and CDOT in 2005, and they were agreed upon by the resourceagencies during the project’s scoping process between February and April of 2006.

Each overview summarizes the following information for the given resource:

Relevant data or information sources—the types of corridor-level data that will be collected and thesources of those data

Data collection and analysis methodology—how the data collection and analysis will be completed

Project area—defined as one to four miles wide surrounding the existing U.S. 50 facility beginning at

Pueblo, Colorado, at Interstate 25 (I-25) and extending to the Colorado-Kansas state line (resources willbe reviewed within this band, and it is the same for all resources)

Effects—the type(s) of effect(s) to be identified Mitigation options—how mitigation will be addressed

Deliverables—how the activities above will be documented Regulatory guidance/requirements—a list of applicable laws, regulations, agreements, and guidance that

will be followed during the review of the resources

These overviews were used by the project’s resource specialists as guidelines to ensure that their activitieswere relevant to the Tier 1 decision (i.e., corridor location). As the resource specialists conducted their work,data sources or analysis factors were added or removed. The final actions of the resource specialists aredescribed below. The resource methodology overview for agricultural resources is attached to this technicalmemorandum as Appendix A for reference only. Additionally, abbreviations and acronyms used in this report

are listed in Appendix B.

4.1. Relevant Data or Information SourcesThe following sources of data and information were used to identify agricultural resources for the U.S. 50Tier 1 EIS:

NRCS soil surveys and farmland reports for the counties in the project area


10/68


6 June 2016

An agricultural economist with 20 years of experience working in the Lower Arkansas Valley providedinformation about the agricultural use of the non-urbanized land within the project area and theproductivity of that land (productivity data came from enterprise budgets focused on crops grown in theproject area)

A guide listing farmers’ markets in Colorado produced by the Colorado Department of Agriculture A list of livestock sales facilities from the Colorado State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners U.S. Department of Agriculture aerials covering the project area

In addition to these sources, consultations were held with federal, state, and local agencies and communitiesto obtain information about agricultural resources within their jurisdictions. NRCS staff located in thefollowing U.S. Department of Agriculture field offices were consulted between July 10 and August 9, 2006:

Southeast Colorado Resource Conservation and Development Office Rocky Ford Field Service Center

Las Animas Field Service Center Lamar Field Service Center

Northeast Prowers Conservation District Pueblo Field Service Center

During these consultations, NRCS staff members were asked to provide information regarding farmland,unique crops, and important farming methods in use in the Lower Arkansas Valley. These individuals alsowere asked to provide any other agricultural-related information they felt the resource specialist should beaware of for this analysis of agricultural resources.

Individuals working for the Colorado Department of Agriculture were consulted between December 2006 andJanuary 2007. These consultations included interviews with department staff and local U.S. 50 residents whovolunteer for the department within their own communities. The following conservation districts werecontacted and asked to provide information regarding unique crops and farming practices within the U.S. 50project area:

Central Colorado Turkey Creek South Pueblo County Olney-Boone

West Otero East Otero

Bent Prowers

Northeast Prowers

Consultations with local farmers occurred during the following meetings held along the corridor:

Public scoping meetings held in each of the cities and towns along U.S. 50 (10 meetings total) betweenFebruary 27 and March 7, 2006

Community workshops held in each of the cities and towns along U.S. 50, except Pueblo (9 meetings

total), between August 7 and August 16, 2006

4.2. Data Collection and Analysis MethodologyThe methodologies used to identify and evaluate agricultural resources for the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS arediscussed below by the type of resource. These include farmland and ranch lands, feedlots, irrigation canalsand ditches, permanent roadside produce markets, agricultural product storage facilities, and livestock salesfacilities.


11/68


June 2016 7

4.2.1. Farmland and Ranch LandsPrime and unique farmland was mapped originally using NRCS data in consultation with NRCS staff. TheFPPA enables federal agencies to identify farmland in one of two ways, by using the criteria established inSection 5 of the Act, or by requesting that the NRCS make that determination. For the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS, theNRCS was asked to identify farmland in the project area. In consultation with the agency’s staff, relevantfarmland was identified using a geographic information system (GIS) overlay process, which involved thefollowing steps:

1. NRCS soil survey data were downloaded (in GIS format) from the agency’s online data service, the SoilsData Mart, in August 2006. Soil survey data identify and locate existing soil types in an area. Soil surveydata were collected on a county-wide basis for all four counties within the project area (i.e., Pueblo,Otero, Bent, and Prowers counties).

2. NRCS Prime and Other Important Farmlands Reports were downloaded from the agency’s website in August 2006. These reports detail the soils that the NRCS has identified as prime and unique farmlandsoils. The data are provided on a county-wide basis, and reports were collected for all four counties inthe project area.

3. These two datasets were overlaid to identify and locate the prime and unique farmland soils that existwithin the four counties in the Build Alternatives.

4. It is worth noting that some of the soils that the NRCS identifies as prime and unique farmland soils onlyqualify for that designation if certain conditions exist, such as if the land is irrigated. For the purposes of

the Tier 1 EIS, all lands containing prime and unique farmland soils were considered prime and uniquefarmland, regardless of the condition of those lands. This decision was made to ensure that the analysisremained within the Tier 1 level of effort (as outlined in the resource methodology overview located in Appendix A).

5. The project area boundaries then were compared to this county-wide dataset of prime and uniquefarmland soil locations to identify the prime and unique farmland soils located within the project area.

Prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance was calculated for each of the project counties withinthe 1,000-foot-wide Build Alternatives. There is a total of 2,343,000 acres of prime and unique farmlandwithin the four project counties (NRCS 2005). As shown in Table 4-1, Prowers County has the secondlargest number of acres of prime farmland and is the only county in the project area to have impacts tofarmland of statewide importance. Maps showing the location of these lands within the project area (bycounty) are presented in Appendix C (Figure C-1 through Figure C-4).

Table 4-1. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance

CountyPrime Farmland

(Acres)Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Acres)Total (Acres)

Pueblo 705,357 — 705,357

Bent 444,525 — 444,525

Otero 371,707 — 371,707

Prowers 675,030 146,296 821,326

Total 2,196,619 146,296 2,342,915Source: NRCS 2005

To further differentiate between impacts to farmland resources, an additional level of analysis was performedto identify the relative productivity of the agricultural land in the project area. This effort was completed withthe assistance of Jeffrey E. Tranel, an agricultural economist who has been researching agricultural issues inthe Lower Arkansas Valley for Colorado State University for 20 years. The productivity of both farmland andranch lands was considered, since both are important parts of the Lower Arkansas Valley’s agricultural-based economy. Effects to farmland and ranch lands were evaluated based on the number of acres affectedand the loss in productive value of those acres. The productive value of farmland and ranch lands wascalculated by estimating the potential profit that could be generated from one growing season of farming or


12/68


8 June 2016

one year of grazing. Profitability was estimated differently for farmland and ranch lands due to the way eachtype of land is used.

To identify the relative productivity of agricultural lands in the project area, the historic agricultural use of theland was identified, which is the type of agricultural activity that typically has taken place on the land inrecent years. The following three categories of agricultural use were developed based on the most prominentagricultural uses that have existed, and currently exist, in the project area.

Vegetables (farmland)—land used to grow melons, onions, fruit, sod, and other non-grain crops

Alfalfa/corn (farmland)—land used to grow alfalfa, corn, and other grain crops Ranching/grazing (ranch lands)—all other non-urbanized land where ranching or grazing activities could

occur

The next step was to rank these categories from most productive (1) to least productive (3) based on theprofitability of each agricultural use. The profitability of farmland (vegetables and alfalfa/corn) was estimatedbased on the income and expenses associated with the production of certain crops grown in the Lower Arkansas Valley in 2007. Enterprise budgets were developed for these crops, which enumerate the incomeand expenses related to the production of an acre of a particular crop. This information was compared toidentify the potential profitability of the land. The enterprise budgets used for this analysis:

Were completed, in part, using existing information about agricultural expenses and receipts, includingbut not limited to crop prices, labor rates, equipment maintenance costs, and the cost of agriculturalinputs, such as seed, fertilizer, and water

Do not represent the income or expenses related to any one individual farm operation

Do not represent a single set of farm management practices Involve typical incomes and expenses for each crop

May not predict future income or expenses due to changing costs, prices, or farming practices Include information obtained from certain farmers, researchers, and input suppliers who were

interviewed about issues related to their operations Do not consider factor payments, which are costs such as returns to land, operator’s labor,

management, and the risk associated with growing the crop

Enterprise budgets were developed for certain crops that have been grown historically in the Lower

Arkansas Valley, including watermelon, tomatoes, pumpkins, onions, cantaloupe, sweet corn, chili peppers,alfalfa, and corn. The income (i.e., gross receipts) and expenses (i.e., direct costs) of growing an acre ofeach crop were calculated. The difference between these figures represents the net income (i.e., profit) thatcould be expected from producing an acre of that crop.

The net incomes of the vegetable crops were averaged to determine an estimated profitability for thatcategory of agricultural land use. These crops included watermelon, tomatoes, pumpkins, onions,cantaloupe, sweet corn, and chili peppers. Similarly, the net incomes of alfalfa and corn were averaged todetermine an estimated profitability for that category of agricultural land use. These calculations arepresented in Table 4-2.


13/68


June 2016 9

Table 4-2. Enterprise Budget Information for Crops Grown in theLower Arkansas Valley (all figures are per acre)

CropGross

Receipts

Pre-Harvest

Costs

HarvestCosts

Propertyand

O

wnership

Costs

TotalDirect

Costs

NetProfitsd

Watermelon $7,500 $1,143 $120 $82 $1,345 $6,155

Tomatoes $10,000 $1,001 $600 $68 $1,669 $8,331

Pumpkins $2,400 $880 $120 $74 $1,074 $1,326

Onions $5,000 $748 $300 $84 $1,132 $3,868

Cantaloupe $6,175 $1,145 $1,375 $78 $2,597 $3,578

Sweet corn $4,500 $543 $180 $70 $794 $3,706

Chili peppers $6,000 $797 $500 $71 $1,368 $4,632

All vegetablesa $5,939 $894 $456 $75 $1,426 $4,514

Alfalfab $720 $190 $96 $115 $304 $416

Cornb $720 $230 $39 $54 $323 $397

Alfalfa/cornc $720 $210 $68 $84 $314 $406a Average of all vegetables listedbGrown under flood irrigationc Average of alfalfa and cornd Before factor paymentsSource: Tranel 2008b

The enterprise budgets revealed that the average net income (i.e., profitability) from one acre of alfalfa orcorn production is approximately $400 per acre per growing season, while that figure for vegetable cropproduction is roughly $4,500 (see Table 4-1). Thus, it is approximately 11 times more profitable to growvegetables than alfalfa/corn crops in the Lower Arkansas Valley. As a result, this analysis afforded an effectto land used for vegetable production as more severe than an effect to land used for alfalfa/corn production.

It is important to note that these estimates are intended to show the relative loss in productive value thatwould occur when farmland is affected by the alternatives. They do not represent actual profits generated byindividual farms in the Lower Arkansas Valley. They are estimates derived from available aggregate data.

The profitability of ranch lands was estimated based on the amount of money an owner of an acre of ranchland in southeastern Colorado could earn from grazing livestock on it. The estimate involved identifying howmuch livestock could be grazed on an acre of ranch land and how much money a rancher could earn fromthat activity in one year. The number of acres required to graze one unit of livestock (i.e., one cow-calf pair)depends on many factors, including the type of animal, what months the grazing takes place, and pastureconditions. This analysis did not identify these factors for each ranching operation in the 150-mile-longproject area. Instead, several estimates were obtained and averaged. This process resulted in adetermination that 45 acres of ranch land is needed to graze one unit of livestock in southeastern Colorado(Baker 2009, Fankhauser 2009, Stulp Farms 2009). This figure assumes that the animals are grazed for 12

months and supplemental feed may be necessary during the winter months.

The next step was to determine how much money a rancher could earn from grazing one cow-calf pair on 45acres of ranch land. The most common charge for grazing in 2007 ranged from $18.00 to $25.50 per cow-calf pair per month depending on the type of land (Tranel 2008b). Assuming the greatest charge ($25.50), arancher could expect to earn approximately $306 per cow-calf pair in one year. Since that cow-calf pairwould require 45 acres of ranch land, this translates into $306 per year for every 45 acres of ranch land, orapproximately $7 per acre per year ($306 divided by 45 acres). Similar to the profitability estimates statedabove, this figure does not represent actual profits generated by individual ranches in the Lower ArkansasValley. It is an estimate based on available aggregate information.


14/68


10 June 2016

This method for calculating grazing land also makes the assumption that most cattle production operatorsare not landowners. Calculating the loss in land productivity based upon loss in beef sales revenue, asopposed to the loss in leasing value, would result in higher negative impacts (more than twice the value peracre), yet this difference is negligible when compared to impacts to vegetable production and alfalfa/cornfarms. The determination of relative impacts to land is overwhelmingly influenced by the higher qualityfarmland within the study area.

From the information above, each category of agricultural land use was ranked from highest (1) to lowest (3)productivity as follows. The profitability of an acre of each use is noted in parentheses.

1. Vegetables ($4,500 per acre)2. Alfalfa/corn ($400 per acre)3. Ranching/grazing ($7 per acre)

All agricultural land within the project area was placed into one of these three productivity categories. It isimportant to note that this effort involved a high-level identification of general areas of productivity, not afield-specific identification. Additionally, the following caveats apply to this effort:

The historic agricultural use of the land was identified using the best available information. This effort didnot include speaking to every farm or ranch owner in the 150-mile-long project area to obtain information

about production on individual parcels. Land was placed in the highest category possible. Areas that were borderline between two categories

were placed in the higher (i.e., more productive) category.

The agricultural use identified for each area represents the historical and reasonably expected future useof that area as of April 2008, given the information known at that time. These data should be considereda “snapshot in time” and not a guarantee of the future use of any specific parcel(s) of land.

This analysis does not consider water rights. It used historic production (i.e., what crop(s) have beengrown on the land) to extrapolate future production (i.e., what crop(s) are likely to be grown on the landin the near future) without considering how changes in water rights may alter this condition.

The analysis does not consider crop rotation from year to year. The primary use of the land determinedthe category to which it was assigned. If multiple crops were known to be grown, then the crop grown themajority of the time was used to determine the category. If multiple crops were grown a relatively equalamount of the time, the area was placed in the highest category relative to the crops grown.

The productivity categories were developed to provide a general understanding of farmland effectsassociated with the Build Alternatives recommended by the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS. This information was notintended to associate a particular monetary value to any particular parcel of land.

The analysis does not consider new or changing technologies or management practices. New seedvarieties, soil amendments, etc. may allow a farmer to grow a higher-value crop on land that hashistorically been used to produce lower-value crops.

The result of the tasks described above was the assignment of agricultural land in the project area to one ofthe three agricultural use categories (i.e., vegetables, alfalfa/corn, or ranching/grazing). This information wasutilized to calculate the potential loss in productivity to the Lower Arkansas Valley from the Build Alternatives.The number of acres of land affected was multiplied by the estimated productivity (i.e., profitability) of theassociated agricultural use to determine the loss in productivity to the area.

4.2.2. FeedlotsFeedlots were identified using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Enforcement andCompliance History Online (ECHO) data query tool. Feedlots that are not currently regulated by the EPAwere not included in these results.

4.2.3. Irrigation Canals and DitchesThe irrigation canal and ditch system in the project area was excavated in the late 1800s when the firstsettlers arrived to the region. For this reason, these features were primarily identified during the historic


15/68


June 2016 11

resources evaluation for the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS. More information about them and how they were identifiedcan be found in the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS Historic and Archaeological Resources Technical Memorandum.

4.2.4. Permanent Roadside Produce MarketsPermanent roadside produce markets were defined as markets located along or near U.S. 50 that arehoused in permanent structures (i.e., buildings or other non-mobile structures). They were identified primarilyusing a guide published by the Colorado Department of Agriculture that listed markets operating in Coloradoin 2008. In addition to these permanent markets, seasonal markets also operate along U.S. 50 in the Lower Arkansas Valley on a temporary basis. Because it is impossible to know which of these markets will openduring any given season, or where they may be located, they were not included in this analysis.

4.2.5. Agricultural Product Storage Facilities Agricultural storage facilities were identified primarily using U.S. Department of Agriculture aerialphotography of the project area.

4.2.6. Livestock Sales FacilitiesLivestock sales facilities were identified using a list of existing, operational facilities acquired from theColorado State Board of Stock Inspection Commissioners. The list includes all facilities operating inColorado in April 2008.

4.3. Project AreaThe project area for the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS has been defined as one to four miles wide surrounding theexisting U.S. 50 facility and extending from Pueblo, Colorado, at I-25 to the Colorado-Kansas state line(Figure 1-1). The project area encompasses the study area limits, which is where the Tier 1 corridoralternatives considered by this project would be located.

The study area is 1,000 feet wide centered on the corridor alternatives, beginning on or near the existingU.S. 50 at I-25 in Pueblo, Colorado, and extending to just east of Holly, Colorado, in the vicinity of theColorado-Kansas state line. The limits of the project were approved by the lead agencies and other projectstakeholders during the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS’s scoping activities.

4.4. EffectsThe purpose of the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS is to identify the 1,000-foot-wide Build Alternatives within which a 250-foot-wide(maximum) roadway footprint (i.e., alignment) would be identifiedduring Tier 2 studies (see Figure 4-1). Direct and indirect effectsto agricultural resources were estimated based on the type ofresources, as indicated below.

4.4.1. Direct EffectsDirect effects to farmland and ranch lands, feedlots, irrigationcanals and ditches, permanent roadside produce markets,

agricultural storage facilities, and livestock sales facilities arediscussed below by resource type.

Prime Farmland and Farmland of StatewideImportancePrime and unique farmland and farmland of statewideimportance was identified using spatial data from the NRCSNational Cooperative Soil Survey (2003). Impacts to prime andunique farmland are the total acres of prime and uniquefarmland within the Build Alternatives, rounded to the nearest

Figure 4-1. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 Decision


16/68


12 June 2016

acre. All farmland identified as having any potential to be prime farmland, depending on irrigation and otherland management practices, was considered prime.

Prime farmland area calculations for the Build Alternatives were multiplied by a conversion factor to betterestimate impacts of a 250-foot-wide highway footprint. The conversion factor was necessary because thepurpose of this document is to determine the location of a 1,000-foot-wide alternative within which a 250-foot-wide (maximum) roadway footprint would be identified during Tier 2 studies. The conversion factor,

generally 0.25, reflects that only one-quarter of the alternative width would be needed for highway right ofway. This conversion provides a more realistic value for expected effects from the Build Alternatives.

Farmland and Ranch LandsEffects to farmland and ranch lands were calculated by identifying the total number of acres affected by eachsegment of the 1,000-foot-wide Build Alternatives and multiplying that total by a conversion factor of 0.25(i.e., dividing the total by 4). This converted figure provided a more realistic value of the potential direct effectto farmland and ranch lands during Tier 2 studies.

Due to the varied width of certain segments (slightly more or less than 1,000 feet), four segments useddifferent conversion factors (i.e., not 0.25), including Pueblo (1.0), Pueblo to Fowler (0.2), Rocky Ford (0.31),and La Junta to Las Animas (0.19). The number of acres of farmland or ranch lands potentially affected bythe Build Alternatives (after applying the conversion factor) was multiplied by the estimated productivity of

that land (i.e., $4,500 for acres producing vegetables, $400 for acres producing alfalfa/corn, or $7 for ranchlands) to determine the potential loss in productivity to the agricultural economy of the Lower ArkansasValley.

FeedlotsFeedlots were considered potentially affected if any part of the property was located within the Build Alternatives. Feedlots require a significant amount of infrastructure investment. Therefore, effects to themnot only include the value of the land, but also the value of this infrastructure. This analysis did not identifythe specific value of the infrastructure held by feedlot owners in the project area because these figuresrequire facility-specific information about capital expenses. Access to U.S. 50 is also an issue for feedlots.They depend on regional roadways to get their livestock to market. Therefore, it is important for thesefacilities to maintain some type of connection between their property and the regional roadway network. Thisaccess also must accommodate large vehicles that haul feed and are used to transport livestock.

Irrigation Canals and DitchesIrrigation canals and ditches were considered potentially affected if any part of the canal or ditch was locatedwithin the Build Alternatives. The fact that U.S. 50 would cross a canal or ditch does not necessarily result inadverse effects to it. In fact, U.S. 50 crosses many canals and ditches today with no adverse effect to waterflows. Canals and ditches would be adversely affected only if their water flows were altered to prevent thewater from reaching receiving fields. During Tier 2 studies, improvements to U.S. 50 would be designed toavoid or minimize adverse effects to water flows. Additionally, roadways used to monitor and maintain canalsand ditches would be preserved or replaced so that these operations could continue.

Permanent Roadside Produce MarketsPermanent roadside produce markets were considered potentially affected if any part of the market(including associated parking areas) was located within the Build Alternatives. Access to U.S. 50 is also animportant issue for these markets. As their name implies, roadside produce markets depend heavily onpassing travelers for their customer base. Therefore, it is essential that drivers are able to see the marketsfrom the road and access them at the time they are spotted. Since the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS is recommendingthat access to U.S. 50 be more limited than it is today, it is likely that the Build Alternatives would result inchanges in access for some of these markets. Additionally, markets currently located within U.S. 50communities may be affected by a reduction in pass-by traffic after the new alignment of U.S. 50 (eithernorth or south of town) is constructed.


17/68


June 2016 13

Agricultural Product Storage Facilities Agricultural product storage facilities were considered potentially affected if any part of the storage facilitywas located within the Build Alternatives. Since U.S. 50 is a primary farm-to-market route for farmers in theLower Arkansas Valley, access to the highway is important for these facilities. Since the U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS isrecommending that access to U.S. 50 be more limited than it is today, it is likely that the Build Alternativeswould result in changes in access for some of these facilities.

Livestock Sales FacilitiesLivestock sales facilities were considered potentially affected if any part of the property was located withinthe Build Alternatives. Access to U.S. 50 is also an issue for these facilities. They operate on regional, notlocal, scales. Therefore, it is important for these facilities to maintain some type of connection to the regionalroadway network. This access also must accommodate large trucks used to transport livestock.

4.4.2. Indirect EffectsIndirect loss of farmland cannot be quantified at this Tier 1 level of analysis. These indirect losses, alsocalled uneconomical remainders, are the portions of farm fields rendered unusable due to their small size oran inability of the farmer to get to them or water them. The U.S. 50 Tier 1 EIS identifies a 1,000-foot-widegeneral corridor location, within which just 250 feet (or possibly less) would be needed for the roadwayalignment (this alignment will be identified during Tier 2 studies). Since this analysis cannot determine which

specific fields will be affected, it cannot identify indirect losses or uneconomical remainders that might result.However, because this is an important issue for farmers and ranchers in the Lower Arkansas Valley,mitigation strategies for these potential losses have been included in Section 7.

4.5. Mitigation Options Avoidance or minimization will be the primary mitigation options for handling agricultural resources.

4.6. DeliverablesThis technical memorandum is the primary deliverable related to agricultural resources for the U.S. 50 Tier 1EIS. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms will not be completed during this Tier 1 EIS since nofarmland will be converted by the resulting federal action. These forms will be completed during Tier 2

studies when a roadway alignment (i.e., footprint) is identified.


18/68


14 June 2016

5. Existing Conditions

The presence of the Arkansas River and the man-made irrigation canals running from it allowed the Lower Arkansas Valley to build a strong agricultural industry early in its history, and the industry has been animportant part of life in the area for more than 100 years. These activities have provided jobs to local

residents, contributed significantly to the development of the region, contributed to both the local andstatewide economies, and account for more than half of the land use in the project counties (i.e., Pueblo,Otero, Bent, and Prowers counties) (Agricultural Census 2007a, Agricultural Census 2002b, U.S. Census2010). Thus, it is important that these lands be recognized as a valuable resource.

The Census of Agriculture defines farms (i.e., farmland and ranch lands) as lands primarily used for crops,pasture, or grazing, as well as certain woodlands and wastelands that are part of a farm where at least$1,000 of agricultural products have been produced and sold, or normally would have been sold annually(Agricultural Census 2007a). By 1900, all four counties in the project area reported at least 100,000 acres offarmland and ranch lands, with Pueblo County reporting over 450,000 acres (Historical Census Browser2007). This land area constituted roughly 11 percent of the total farmland and ranch lands in the state ofColorado during that year (Historical Census Browser 2007).

Since 1982, farming activities along the Arkansas River have decreased due to urban demand for water,pressure from communities downstream (i.e., the state of Kansas), and shifting of water supplies to electricgeneration (Pueblo Chieftain 2007). However, even with this decline, agricultural activities remain theeconomic foundation of the region. In 2007, 3.5 million acres of land in the project counties were used forfarming and ranching (Agricultural Census 2007a).

The sections below discuss the agricultural economy and current resources that exist in the Lower ArkansasValley.

5.1. Agricultural EconomyEmployment data show the importance of agricultural activities to the economic life of the Lower Arkansas

Valley. In 2011, the agricultural sector provided nearly 8 percent of all jobs in Otero County, 11 percent of

jobs in Prowers County, and more than 26 percent of employment in Bent County (see Table 5-1) (ColoradoEconomic and Demographic Information System [CEDIS] 2013). In Bent County, the sector is the second

largest employer behind government entities (CEDIS 2013).

Table 5-1. Percent of Total (Direct) Employment by Sector and County in 2011 (NAICS Based)

Economic Sector ColoradoPuebloCounty

OteroCounty

BentCounty

ProwersCounty

Agriculture 1.4% 1.2% 7.8% 26.3% 11.3%

Construction 5.9% 8.0% 3.3% — 5.0%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 7.6% 5.3% 4.6% — 6.2%

Government 16.2% 22.8% 23.1% 40.4% 25.8%

Manufacturing 4.8% 7.4% 5.8% — 5.7%Mining and Extractive Industries 1.1% 0.1% — — 1.8%

Services 33.7% 20.6% — — —

Transportation, Communications, andUtilities

11.6% 14.8% — — 10.0%

Wholesale and Retail Trade 13.3% 16.4% 14.5% 7.1% 16.0%

Arts and Education 4.4% 3.3% — — — Source: CEDIS 2013, (*) = suppressed dataNAICS = North American Industry Classification System


19/68


June 2016 15

It also should be noted that these data only describe direct employment within the agricultural sector. Whilethis analysis does not include an estimate of the number of jobs indirectly created by the industry, it is fair tosay that a certain number of jobs in the Lower Arkansas Valley exist to support agricultural activities. Thus,these jobs can be indirectly attributed to the industry’s strong presence there.

Additionally, in 2007, the Colorado Department of Agriculture reported that nearly 3.5 million acres offarmland and ranch lands in the project counties produced over $500 million in agricultural goods. This figure

represented roughly 9 percent of the value of all agricultural products produced in the state of Colorado(Agricultural Census 2007b, Agricultural Census 2007a). Of Colorado’s 64 counties, the project countiesrank 6th (Prowers), 12th (Otero), 17th (Bent), and 24th (Pueblo) for agricultural production in terms of themarket value of all products sold (Agricultural Census 2007a). Some of these acres were used to grazecattle and facilitated the sale of approximately 323,000 cattle and calves in 2007, which represented roughly10 percent of all these animals sold in the state of Colorado in that year (Agricultural Census 2007a).

5.2. Agricultural Resources Agricultural resources in the project area are described below by the type of resource. They include primefarmland and farmland of statewide importance, farmland and ranch lands, feedlots, irrigation canals andditches, permanent roadside produce markets, agricultural product storage facilities, and livestock salesfacilities.

5.2.1. Farmland and Ranch LandsThe project area contains approximately 83,000 acres of farmland (Tranel 2008a). These acres generally arelocated adjacent to the Arkansas River or the system of irrigation canals and ditches associated with it. Majorcrops grown in the Lower Arkansas Valley include corn for grain, corn for silage, dry edible beans (excludinglimas), forage, sorghum for silage, vegetables, and wheat for grain. While the majority of these crops aregrown in all four project counties, individual counties stand out as major growers of particular crops on thatlist. For example, Prowers County ranks sixth in the state for the total dollars in crop sales, earning$82,147,000 per year (Agricultural Census 2007a). Each of the project counties produces at least one cropthat ranks it within the top 10 statewide for the number of acres in production (see Table 5-2).


20/68


16 June 2016

Table 5-2. State Rank (Top 10 Only) for Acres of Crop Production by County

ProjectCounty

CropStateRankb

Universea

Pueblo Vegetables 10 47

Pueblo Dry edible beans 8 20

Pueblo Sorghum for silage 9 19

Pueblo Haylage, alfalfa 6 39

Otero Vegetables 8 47

Otero Sorghum for silage 10 19

Otero Hay, alfalfa 7 58

Bent Sorghum for silage 4 19

Bent Sorghum for grain 10 22

Bent Hay, alfalfa 5 58

Prowers Sorghum for silage 5 19

Prowers Sorghum for grain 3 22

Prowers Oats 10 32

Prowers Hay and haylage 3 63

Prowers Hay, alfalfa 2 58

Prowers Grain 6 50

Prowers Corn, silage 9 37aThe number of Colorado counties producing this item—out of 64 countiesbVegetables ranked by acres in production per year; grain measured in dollar sales; all other cropsranked by acres harvested per year.Source: Agricultural Census 2007a

The project area contains approximately 92,000 acres of ranch lands (Tranel 2008a). These lands lieprimarily outside the irrigated agricultural areas and areas immediately surrounding the project

municipalities.

Table 5-3 shows the location of farmland (i.e., vegetables and alfalfa/corn) and ranch lands within the projectarea by county. It is important to reiterate that these are acres of farmland or ranch lands within the portionsof the counties that are also within the project area (not the entire county); therefore, countywide figureswould be higher than those shown.

Table 5-3. Farmland and Ranch Lands in the Project Area by County

CountyVegetablesa

(acres)

Alfalfa/Cornb

(acres)

Ranching/

Grazingc

(acres)

Total perCounty

(acres)

Pueblo 24 3,330 30,570 33,924

Otero 17,690 16,191 31,462 65,343Bent 0 21,748 17,237 38,985

Prowers 343 24,019 12,311 36,673

Total (all counties) 18,057 65,288 91,580 174,925aIncludes melons, onions, fruit, sod, and other non-grain cropsbIncludes alfalfa, corn, and other grain cropsc Includes all other agricultural (i.e., non-urbanized) land where ranching or grazing activities could occurSource: Tranel 2008a


21/68


June 2016 17

The locations of these acres are shown on maps located in Appendix C (Figure C-5 through Figure C-8).

5.2.2. Other Agricultural ResourcesThe other agricultural resources identified within the project area are listed below. The locations of theseresources are shown on maps located in Appendix C (Figure C-9 through Figure C-12).

Feedlots A total of four facilities were identified at the following locations.

Rocky Ford Feedyard, northwest of Rocky Ford at U.S. 50 and CR 16 United Feeders, southeast of Rocky Ford at CR 20.5 and CR Dd

Ribeye Feeders, north of Rocky Ford on CR 19 JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, west of Lamar on the south side of U.S. 50 near the junction of U.S. 50

and U.S. 287.

Irrigation Canals and Ditches A total of 24 irrigation canals or ditches were identified, and they are listed below.

Amity Canal Jones Ditch Otero Canal

Buffalo Canal Lamar Canal Oxford Farmers Ditch

Catlin Canal Las Animas Town Ditch Riverview Ditch

Consolidated Ditch Lubers Drainage Ditch Rocky Ford Canal

Excelsior Ditch Main Leach Canal Rock Ford Highline Canal

Fort Lyon Canal Manvel Canal Sunflower Ditch

Granada Ditch McClave Drainage Ditch Vista Del Rio Ditch

Holly Ditch Miller Ditch X-Y Canal

Permanent Roadside Produce MarketsThe following six markets were identified, and their general locations are listed.

Mills Brothers Farm Market—located on U.S. 50 west of Rocky Ford O’Neal Produce (Arkansas Valley Produce)—located on U.S. 50 west of Rocky Ford Knapp’s Farm Market—located on SH 71 west of Rocky Ford

Sackett Farm Market—located on U.S. 50 between Rocky Ford and Swink Mary’s Farm Market (Hanagan Farms)—located on U.S. 50 just west of Swink

Lusk Farms (Grasmick’s Produce)—located on U.S. 50 just east of Swink

Agricultural Product Storage Facilities A total of six facilities used to store agricultural products were identified at the following locations.

In Fowler near Santa Fe Avenue and 7th Street In La Junta near 1st Street and Smithland Avenue

In Granada near North Main Street and East Half Avenue West of Holly near CR EE.5 and the BNSF (formerly Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe) Railway

West of Holly near Road 30.5 and the BNSF Railway In Holly near Vinson Street and the BNSF Railway


22/68


18 June 2016

Livestock Sales FacilitiesThe following three facilities were identified, and their general locations are listed.

Clark Livestock—on U.S. 50 just west of Fowler

Winter Livestock—on U.S. 50 in La Junta La Junta Livestock Commission—on U.S. 50 in La Junta

5.3. Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, Unique Crops,and Farming Methods

Consultations were held with the NRCS, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and local farmers toidentify farmland of statewide or local importance, unique crops, and unique farming methods within theproject area. A summary of these consultations (i.e., who was consulted with and when) can be found inSection 4.2. The results of those consultations are discussed below.

The FPPA defines farmland of statewide or local importance as “farmland, other than prime or uniquefarmland, that is of statewide or local importance for the production of food feed, fiber, forage, or oilseedcrops, as determined by the appropriate State or unit of local government agency or agencies” (1984, Sect2(c)(1)(C)). This information is combined with prime and unique land identification. There are acres of land

identified as having statewide importance, all of which are located within Prowers County.

It should be noted that the area surrounding Rocky Ford has historically been known for melon and seedproduction (CDOT 2008). Additionally, an agricultural economist from Colorado State University (JeffreyTranel) indicated that the farmland south of Swink, which is currently in use for vegetable production, issome of the highest quality farmland in Colorado and is rivaled in quality by only a few small pockets of landin the Midwestern United States (Tranel 2008a).

Only one individual who was consulted provided feedback regarding farming methods in the project area. AnNRCS staff member working out of the Rocky Ford Field Service Center provided the following information(Miller 2006):

Much of the subsurface drip irrigation in Otero County has been installed in farm fields adjacent to U.S.

50. This type of irrigation system raises the value of that land substantially. It usually costs around$1,300 an acre to install, and it significantly raises the yields on crops planted with the system every yearafter it is installed.

There are many irrigation siphons that currently cross U.S. 50 and also cross the railroad right of way.These siphons were engineered to move the water the existing distance; thus, to lengthen their deliverywill mandate further engineering.


23/68


June 2016 19

6. Effects Analysis

This evaluation of effects uses the worst-case scenario (i.e., the largest number of resources that couldpossibly be affected). It should be noted that many of the resources identified within the Tier 1 Build Alternatives could be avoided during future Tier 2 studies.

6.1. No-Build AlternativeUnder the No-Build Alternative, only minor and isolated construction would occur. Routine maintenance andrepairs would be made as necessary to keep U.S. 50 in usable condition, including standard overlays andrepairs of weather- or crash-related damage. Additionally, smaller scale improvements may be undertaken,such as short passing lanes and other minor safety improvements.

Since routine maintenance and repairs are conducted on the existing highway, they would not causepermanent effects to agricultural resources. Smaller scale improvements may require acquisition of farmlandor ranch land currently being used for agricultural activities. Those acquisitions would occur directly adjacentto the existing highway and are expected to be minimal.

6.2. Build AlternativesThe Build Alternatives consist of constructing a four-lane expressway on or near the existing U.S. 50 fromI-25 in Pueblo, Colorado, to approximately one mile east of Holly, Colorado. There are a total of 30 Build Alternatives. In Pueblo, three Build Alternatives are proposed that either improve U.S. 50 on its existingalignment and/or reroute it to the north to utilize SH 47. East of Pueblo, the remaining 27 Build Alternativesare divided into nine between-town alternatives and 18 around-town alternatives. The nine between-townalternatives improve U.S. 50 on its current alignment, with the exception of near Fort Reynolds, where thereis an alternative to realign the roadway to the south. The 18 around-town alternatives propose relocatingU.S. 50 from its current through-town route at Fowler, Manzanola, Rocky Ford, Swink, La Junta, Las Animas,Granada, and Holly. Figure 6-1 provides an overview of the Build Alternatives as proposed.

The Build Alternatives have the potential to affect agricultural resources. It could affect between 3,600 and

4,588 acres of farmland or ranch lands, depending on which alternatives are chosen at each around-townroute. Table 6-1 summarizes these effects.

How was the Productivity of Farmland and Ranch Lands Calculated?

The productivity of farmland and ranch lands was calculated by multiplying the number of acresaffected by the Build Alternatives by the estimated profit that could be made from the lands’historic agricultural use. The following levels of profit were estimated for categories ofagricultural use:

Vegetables—$4,500 per acre Alfalfa/corn—$400 per acre Ranch lands—$7 per acre

More information about how these rofit levels were estimated is resented in Section 4.2.


24/68


20 June 2016

Figure 6-1. Build Alternatives Overview


25/68


June 2016 21

Table 6-1. Summary of Potentially Affected Agricultural Resources by Section for the Build Alternatives

SectionBuild Alternatives(if more than one)

Acres Productive Value

Feedlotsf

IrrigationCanalsand

Ditches

PermanentRoadside

ProduceMarketsg

P

rimeandUnique

Farmlande

Ve

getable(farmland)

Alfalfa/Corn

(farmland)

RanchLands

Total

V

egetable($4,500g)

Alfalfa/Corn($400g)

R

anching/Grazing

($7)

E

stimatedValueof

Fa

rmlandandRanch

LandProduction

(2007dollars)

Section 1:Pueblo

Alternative 1: Pueblo Airport North

41 0 2 350 352 $0 $755 $2,454 $3,208 0 0 0

Alternative 2: PuebloExisting Alignment

12 0 1 130 131 $0 $300 $909 $1,209 0 0 0

Alternative 3: PuebloSH 47 Connection

12 0 0 103 103 $0 $75 $721 $796 0 0 0

Section 2:Pueblo toFowler

Alternative 1: FortReynolds Existing

Alignment361 0 86 533 619 $0 $34,412 $3,733 $38,145 0 3 0

Alternative 2: FortReynoldsRealignment

377 0 117 499 616 $0 $46,855 $3,490 $50,345 0 3 0

Section 3:Fowler

Alternative 1: FowlerNorth

76 0 51 38 89 $200 $20,569 $268 $21,037 0 2 0

Alternative 2: FowlerSouth

146 0 144 2 146 $0 $57,760 $15 $57,775 0 2 0

Section 4:Fowler toManzanola

— 170 3 171 12 186 $13,937 $68,412 $82 $82,432 0 2 0

Section 5:Manzanola

Alternative 1:Manzanola North

78 0 56 22 78 $0 $22,242 $152 $22,395 0 2 0

Alternative 2:Manzanola South

79 14 58 5 77 $62,186 $23,294 $33 $85,512 0 2 0


26/68


22 June 2016



Feedlotsf

IrrigationCanalsand

Ditches

PermanentRoadside

ProduceMarketsg

PrimeandUnique

Farmlande

Vegetable(farmland)

Alfalfa/Corn

(farmland)

RanchLands

Total

Vegetable($4,500g)

Alfalfa/Corn($400g)

Ranching/Grazing

($7)

EstimatedValueof

FarmlandandRanch

LandProduction

(2007dollars)

Section 6:Manzanolato RockyFord

— 163 49 105 10 164 $220,363 $41,917 $69 $262,348 0 1 2

Section 7:Rocky Ford

Alternative 1: RockyFord North

223 170 0 66 236 $764,431 $0 $463 $764,894 1 2 2

Alternative 2: RockyFord South

219 164 59 25 248 $738,050 $23,635 $173 $761,857 1 4 2

Section 8:Rocky Fordto Swink

— 24 25 3 3 31 $111,223 $1,087 $23 $112,333 1 0 0

Section 9:Swink

Alternative 1: SwinkNorth

39 23 12 26 61 $102,193 $4,786 $184 $107,164 0 0 1d

Alternative 2: SwinkSouth 71 74 0 2 76 $333,195 $0 $15 $333,210 0 0 1

d


27/68


June 2016 23



Feedlotsf

IrrigationCanalsand

Ditches

PermanentRoadside

ProduceMarketsg

PrimeandUnique

Farmlande

Vegetable(farmland)

Alfalfa/Corn

(farmland)

RanchLands

Total

Vegetable($4,500g)

Alfalfa/Corn($400g)

Ranching/Grazing

($7)

EstimatedValueof

FarmlandandRanch

LandProduction

(2007dollars)

Section 10:La Junta

Alternative 1: LaJunta North

61 7 16 239 262 $29,925 $6,599 $1,672 $38,196 0 1 0

Alternative 2: LaJunta South

91 39 3 211 253 $175,236 $1,181 $1,480 $177,896 0 1 0


89 48 0 246 294 $213,977 $104 $1,722 $215,803 0 1 0


79 48 17 294 359 $214,170 $6,625 $2,055 $222,850 0 1 0

Section 11:La Junta toLas Animas

— 230 0 46 281 327 $0 $18,486 $1,970 $20,456 0 2 0

Section 12:

Las Animas

Alternative 1: Las Animas North

70 0 33 68 101 $0 $13,142 $475 $13,617 0 2 0

Alternative 2: Las Animas South

122 0 36 105 141 $0 $14,249 $734 $14,983 0 2 0

Section 13:Las Animasto Lamar a

— 690 0 488 245 733 $0 $195,118 $1,717 $196,835 2 7 0

Section 14:Lamar toGranadaa

— 280 6 279 138 423 $25,494 $111,705 $963 $138,161 0 2 0


28/68


24 June 2016



Feedlotsf

IrrigationCanalsand

Ditches

PermanentRoadside

ProduceMarketsg

PrimeandUnique

Farmlande

Vegetable(farmland)

Alfalfa/Corn

(farmland)

RanchLands

Total

Vegetable($4,500g)

Alfalfa/Corn($400g)

Ranching/Grazing

($7)

EstimatedValueof

FarmlandandRanch

LandProduction

(2007dollars)

Section 15:Granada

Alternative 1:Granada North

63 3 45 0 48 $14,999 $18,144 $1 $33,145 0 2 0

Alternative 2:Granada South

18 15 0 47 62 $66,993 $192 $327 $67,513 0 1 0

Section 16:Granada toHolly

— 208 0 148 100 248 $0 $59,337 $701 $60,037 0 2 0

Section 17:Holly

Alternative 1: HollyNorth

50 0 31 20 51 $0 $12,357 $139 $12,496 0 0 0

Alternative 2: HollySouth

58 0 20 43 63 $0 $7,953 $302 $8,256 0 0 0

Section 18:HollyTransition

— 71 0 44 66 110 $0 $17,392 $465 $17,857 0 2 0

Totalb 2,866

to3,047

279to

403

1,531to

1,805

1,790to

2,380

3,600to

4,588

$1.9million

to$2.6

million

5 49c 6

a The Build Alternatives do not include alternatives in Lamar, as discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives Considered.b The total range does not necessarily summarize the same alternatives, but is simply the least and greatest impact by farmland type.c The same 24 irrigation canals and ditches would be affected by the Build Alternatives no matter which alternatives are selected as the Preferred Alternative.d There is one market located within the Swink north alternative and a different market located within the Swink south alternative; therefore, both of these markets havebeen included in this total (because it is not known which one may be affected during Tier 2 studies).e Source: NRCS 2005f Source: EPA ECHO 2013g Source: Tranel 2008


29/68


June 2016 25

6.2.1. Build Alternatives Effects by LocationThe following section describes the agricultural resources by section (i.e., location) and Build Alternative.Table 6-1 summarizes these effects.

Section 1: PuebloAlternative 1: Pueblo Airport North. This alignment replaces the existing route south of the airport with a

route to the north of airport property and includes a connection to SH 47 at the western end of the alignment. Approximately 41 acres of land identified as prime farmland could be impacted by this alternative. Thisimpact to prime farmland is the greatest effect of the alternative considered at the Pueblo location. No land atthis location is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS (2005). Alternative 1 would affect 352acres of farmland and ranch lands, which are composed of two acres of alfalfa/corn and 350 acres of ranchlands. Loss of these farmlands and ranch lands would result in an estimated loss of $3,000 in annualproductive value. This productive loss is the highest for Section 1, as it primarily involves construction of anew roadway through undeveloped land.

Alternative 2: Pueblo Existing Alignment. Approximately 12 acres of land identified as prime farmlandcould be impacted by Alternative 2: Pueblo Existing Alignment. No land at this location is classified as havingstatewide importance by the NRCS (2005). Alternative 2 would affect 131 acres of farmland and ranch lands,which are composed of one percent alfalfa/corn production (one acre) and 99 percent ranch lands (130acres). Loss of this area for agricultural use would result in an estimated $1,000 loss in annual productivevalue to the agricultural economy of the Lower Arkansas Valley. This would be considered a minor impact,as identified in the Economics Technical Memorandum included with the U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. This loss in productive value is low relative to most other portions of the Build Alternativebecause most of the affected areas are ranch lands, which have relatively low productive value.

Alternative 3: Pueblo SH 47 Connection. Alternative 3 at Pueblo includes the existing alignment to thesouth of the airport, with the addition of a connection to SH 47. The impacts to farmland are similar to Alternative 2: Pueblo Existing Alignment and less than Alternative 1: Pueblo Airport North. Alternative 3would affect slightly less than103 acres of farmland and ranch lands, which are composed of less than onepercent alfalfa/corn land (less than one acre) and 99 percent ranch lands (102 acres). Loss of this areawould result in an estimated $1,000 loss in annual productive value. As with Alternative 2, 12 acres of primefarmland could be impacted by the alternative. No land impacted by this alternative is classified as havingstatewide importance by the NRCS (2005).

Section 2: Pueblo to FowlerAlternative 1: Fort Reynolds Existing Alignment. Approximately 361 acres of prime farmland could beimpacted by Alternative 1. No land at this location is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS(2005). This alternative would affect 619 acres of farmland and ranch lands, with an estimated $34,000 lossof annual productive value. Alfalfa/corn crops make up 90 percent of the loss in productive value (86 acres);the remaining 10 percent loss in annual productive value consists of impacts to ranch lands (533 acres). It islikely the alternative would bridge the canals and have minimal impact.

Alternative 2: Fort Reynolds Realignment. The alignment of Alternative 2 is similar to the existingalignment with the exception of approximately three miles around Fort Reynolds. Approximately 377 acres ofland identified as prime farmland would be affected by Alternative 2. The impact to prime farmland is similarto the impact estimated for Alternative 1. No land impacted by this alternative is classified as having

statewide importance by the NRCS (2005). Alternative 2: Fort Reynolds Realignment would affect 616 acresof farmland and ranch lands and incur an estimated loss of $50,000 of annual productive value. Alfalfa/corncrops make up 93 percent of the loss in productive value (117 acres); the remaining 7-percent loss in annualproductive value is due to impacts to ranch lands (499 acres). This alternative also would potentially affectthe Excelsior and Oxford Farmers ditches and the Rocky Ford Highline Canal. It is likely that Alternative 2would have a minimal impact on these irrigation resources, but further effects would be analyzed during Tier2 studies.


30/68


26 June 2016

Section 3: FowlerAlternative 1: Fowler North. Approximately 76 acres of prime farmland would be affected by Alternative 1.This is almost half the amount of acres of prime farmland impacted by Alternative 2: Fowler South. No landimpacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS (2005). Thisalternative would affect 89 acres of farmland and ranch lands and incur an estimated loss of $21,000 ofannual productive value. Alfalfa/corn crops account for 98 percent of the loss in productive value (51 acres);the remaining 2-percent loss in annual productive value is due to impacts to ranch lands (38 acres). This

would be considered a minor impact, as identified in the Economics Technical Memorandum included withthe U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. This alternative also would affect the Otero Canal.

Alternative 2: Fowler South. Approximately 146 acres of prime farmland would be affected by Alternative 2.No land impacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS (2005). Thesouth alternative would affect 146 acres of farmland and ranch lands and experience an estimated loss of$58,000 of annual productive value. Alfalfa/corn crops constitute more than 99 percent of the loss inproductive value (144 acres). Impacted ranch lands (two acres) would result in less than one percent of theloss of annual productive value. This would be considered a minor impact, as identified in the EconomicsTechnical Memorandum included with the U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. This alternative alsowould affect the Rocky Ford Highline Canal and Oxford Farmers Ditch.

Section 4: Fowler to Manzanola

The Build Alternative from Fowler to Manzanola would impact approximately 170 acres of prime farmland. Itwould affect 184 acres of farmland and ranch lands, at an estimated loss of $82,000 of annual productivevalue. Losses in productive value are made up of 17 percent from impacts to vegetable farmland (threeacres), 83 percent from impacts to alfalfa/corn farmland (171 acres), and a small portion from impacts toranch lands (10 acres). This would be considered a minor impact, as identified in the Economics TechnicalMemorandum included with the U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. It also would affect the Otero andCatlin canals.

Section 5: ManzanolaAlternative 1: Manzanola North. Approximately 78 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by Alternative 1. No land impacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS(2005). The Manzanola North Alternative would affect 78 acres of farmland and ranch lands and sustain anestimated loss of $22,000 of annual productive value. Losses in productive value are made up of more than

99 percent of impacts to alfalfa/corn farmland (56 acres) and less than 1 percent of impacts to ranch lands(22 acres). Under the Manzanola North Alternative, efforts would be made to avoid fragmentation offarmland and uneconomical remainders of farm fields. This would be considered a minor impact, asidentified in the Economics Technical Memorandum included with the U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. Impacts to farmland also would have minor impacts to local irrigation demand on the Otero and Catlincanals.

Alternative 2: Manzanola South. Approximately 79 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by Alternative 2. This impact to prime farmland is very similar to the estimated impact for Alternative 1. No landimpacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS (2005). Alternative 2would affect 77 acres of farmland and ranch lands, with an estimated $86,000 loss in annual productivevalue. Lost productive value is made up of 73 percent vegetable production (14 acres), 27 percentalfalfa/corn production (58 acres), and less than 1 percent ranch lands (five acres). Although this is a minor

impact relative to the entire corridor, the effect of Alternative 2 on productive value is significant for thislocation compared to Alternative 1: Manzanola North. This is primarily because 73 percent of the landimpacted is used for vegetable production, the most valuable of the agricultural land uses in the Lower Arkansas Valley. There also would be minor impacts to local irrigation demand on the Otero and Catlincanals.

Section 6: Manzanola to Rocky FordBetween Manzanola and Rocky Ford, the Build Alternative would impact approximately 163 acres of primefarmland. No land impacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS


31/68


June 2016 27

(2005). The Build Alternative would affect 164 acres of farmland and ranch lands and incur an estimated$262,000 loss in annual productive value. Lost productive value is made up of 84 percent vegetableproduction (49 acres), 16 percent alfalfa/corn production (105 acres), and less than 1 percent ranch lands(10 acres). This would be considered a minor impact as far as acreage goes, as identified in the EconomicsTechnical Memorandum included with the U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A, but note that the effecton productive value is significant, given that 84 percent of the loss is vegetable production. It also has thepotential to affect Mills Brothers Farm Market and O’Neal Produce (Arkansas Valley Produce). Efforts will be

made to avoid direct effects to these permanent roadside produce markets during Tier 2 studies. Impactedbusinesses would be relocated following provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act), as amended. Indirect effects related to vehicle access fromU.S. 50 also will be reviewed in more detail during Tier 2 studies when a final alignment for U.S. 50 in thisarea has been identified. The Build Alternative in this area also would affect the Main Leach Canal.

Section 7: Rocky FordAlternative 1: Rocky Ford North. Approximately 223 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by Alternative 1. No land impacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS.The Rocky Ford North Alternative would affect 236 acres of farmland and ranch lands, incurring anestimated $765,000 loss in annual productive value. Lost productive value is made up of 72 percentvegetable production (170 acres) and less than 1 percent ranch lands (66 acres). This is the highest loss inproductive value of all the sections by a substantial margin. In fact, it is $432,000 higher than the next largest

loss, which is $333,000 resulting from the Swink South Alternative. The loss is expected to be high becauseof the large number of highly productive vegetable acres that would be affected. It also could affect SackettFarm Market and the parking lot of Knapp’s Farm Market (both are permanent roadside produce markets).Impacted commercial areas to be acquired would be identified during the final decision and would berelocated according to the Uniform Act. Efforts will be made to avoid direct effects to these facilities duringTier 2 studies. Indirect affects related to vehicle access from U.S. 50 also will be reviewed in more detailduring Tier 2 studies after a final alignment for U.S. 50 in this area has been identified. The Rocky FordNorth Alternative in this area also would affect the Main Leach and Rocky Ford canals.

Alternative 2: Rocky Ford South. Approximately 219 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by Alternative 2. This is similar to the impact on prime farmland estimated for Alternative 1. No land impacted bythis alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS (2005). This alternative wouldaffect 248 acres of farmland and ranch lands and sustain an estimated $762,000 loss in annual productive

value. Lost productive value is made up of 66 percent vegetable production (164 acres), 24 percentalfalfa/corn production (59 acres), and 10 percent ranch lands (25 acres). This is less than the effect toproductive value estimated for Alternative 1: Rocky Ford North, but a relatively high loss compared with othersections along the corridor. The Rocky Ford South Alternative also has the potential to affect two feedlots,United Feeders and Rocky Ford Feedyard. The Rocky Ford South Alternative also would affect the Catlin,Otero, Rocky Ford Highline, and Rocky Ford canals.

Section 8: Rocky Ford to Swink Approximately 24 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by the Rocky Ford to Swink Build Alternativethrough this section. No land impacted by the Build Alternative is classified as having statewide importanceby the NRCS (2005). The Build Alternative would affect 31 acres of farmland and ranch lands andexperience an estimated $112,000 loss in annual productive value. Lost productive value is made up ofclose to 99 percent vegetable production (25 acres), 1 percent alfalfa/corn production (3 acres), and less

than 1 percent ranch lands (3 acres). This would be considered a minor impact, as identified in theEconomics Technical Memorandum included with the U.S. 50 East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. The Build Alternative in this area also has the potential to affect a feedlot, which is located west of Swink on the northside of U.S. 50. Efforts will be made to avoid direct effects to this feedlot during Tier 2 studies.

Section 9: SwinkAlternative 1: Swink North. Approximately 39 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by Alternative 1:Swink North. No land impacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS.This alternative would affect 61 acres of farmland and ranch lands, with an estimated $107,000 loss inannual productive value. Lost productive value is made up of 95 percent vegetable production (23 acres), 5


32/68


28 June 2016

percent alfalfa/corn production (12 acres), and less than 1 percent ranch lands (26 acres). This would beconsidered a minor impact, as identified in the Economics Technical Memorandum included with the U.S. 50East Corridor EIS in Appendix A. This alternative also would affect (directly or indirectly) a permanentroadside produce market—Mary’s Farm Market (Hanagan Farms). Efforts will be made to avoid direct effectsto this market during Tier 2 studies. Impacted businesses would be relocated following provisions of theUniform Act. In addition, vehicle access to the market from U.S. 50 was considered an indirect effect andalso will be reviewed in more detail during Tier 2 studies after a final alignment for U.S. 50 has been

identified.

Alternative 2: Swink South. Approximately 71 acres of prime farmland would be impacted by Alternative 2in Swink. This is almost twice the area of prime farmland estimated to be impacted by Alternative 1. No landimpacted by this alternative is classified as having statewide importance by the NRCS. The Swink South Alternative would affect 76 acres of farmland and ranch lands and incur an estimated $333,000 loss inannual productive value. Lost productive value is made up of more than 99 percent vegetable production (74acres) and

A1: Agricultural Report.pdf

Documents